首页/AI 代码生成与质效/check-impl-against-spec
C

check-impl-against-spec

by @warpdotdevv
4.5(120)

此技能在代码审查期间,将拉取请求的实现与技术规范进行对比,自动识别并报告任何实质性不符之处。它能显著减少手动审查的工作量,确保代码实现严格遵循设计要求,从而提升项目质量和开发效率。特别适用于需要严格遵守规范的开发流程。

code-reviewspec-compliancequality-assurancepr-automationdevelopment-workflowGitHub
安装方式
npx skills add https://github.com/warpdotdev/common-skills --skill check-impl-against-spec
compare_arrows

Before / After 效果对比

1
使用前

开发者在没有此技能之前,需要手动逐行比对代码实现与冗长的技术规范文档,耗时耗力且容易遗漏关键性差异,导致潜在的质量问题和返工。

使用后

此技能能够自动高效地完成代码与规范的对比,快速识别实质性不符之处,大幅减少手动审查时间,确保代码质量和规范一致性,加速PR审批流程。

SKILL.md

Check implementation against spec

Use this skill only when spec_context.md exists during PR review.

Goal

Determine whether the implementation in the checked-out PR materially matches the approved spec context. This is a supplement to the normal code review, not a separate output.

Inputs

  • spec_context.md contains the spec context to compare against. It may include both product spec content (intended behavior, acceptance criteria) and tech spec content (implementation details, file changes).
  • pr_diff.txt contains the annotated diff for the PR.
  • pr_description.md may contain additional scope or rationale.
  • The working tree contains the PR branch contents.

Process

  1. Read spec_context.md and extract the concrete commitments it makes:
    • required behaviors (from the product spec)
    • required files or subsystems to change (from the tech spec)
    • stated constraints
    • required follow-up steps, validation, or migrations
  2. Compare those commitments against the actual implementation in pr_diff.txt and the checked-out files.
  3. Treat small implementation-level adjustments as acceptable when they preserve the spec's intent. Do not flag harmless differences in naming, structure, or low-level technique.
  4. Flag a mismatch only when it is material, such as:
    • required behavior in the product spec is missing
    • the implementation contradicts a spec decision
    • the change introduces significant unplanned scope
    • a required validation, migration, or compatibility step from the tech spec is absent

Outputs

  • Do not create a separate report file.
  • Fold spec-alignment findings into review.json.
  • Put broad spec-drift concerns in the review summary.
  • Add inline comments only when the mismatch can be tied to changed lines in the diff.
  • Treat material spec drift as at least an important concern.
  • If the implementation matches the spec closely enough, do not add comments just to mention alignment.

Boundaries

  • Do not require literal one-to-one implementation of the spec when the PR achieves the same outcome safely.
  • Do not speculate about spec details that are not actually present in spec_context.md.
  • Do not post to GitHub directly.

用户评价 (0)

发表评价

效果
易用性
文档
兼容性

暂无评价

统计数据

安装量9.5K
评分4.5 / 5.0
版本
更新日期2026年7月9日
对比案例1 组

用户评分

4.5(120)
5
37%
4
43%
3
13%
2
5%
1
2%

为此 Skill 评分

0.0

兼容平台

🤖claude-code

时间线

创建2026年6月9日
最后更新2026年7月9日
🎁 Agent 知识卡片
调研问卷